Pervert in the Course of Justice

SteynonLine ^ | April 26, 2024 | Mark Steyn

[Twotone]

Not so long ago, when newspapering was still a going concern, being a "court reporter" was a much sought-after beat - albeit modestly demanding, in that one was expected to know something about the case one was covering and the legal questions it raised.

Not anymore - as I learned during my own trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court a few weeks back. The likes of The New York Times and NPR never sent a reporter to court to cover proceedings for a single day, but instead waited until the verdict and then had the "climate correspondent" write it up as a story about "attacks on climate scientists".

~And so it goes. This week in London Tommy Robinson won a truly spectacular victory over the bent coppers of the disgustingly corrupt Metropolitan Police. That's to say, the judge dismissed the case, as I put it, "on the quaint grounds that his arrest was not lawful". None of it was lawful - not the "dispersal order", not the plods' physical manhandling, not the bail conditions, not one jot or tittle. Robinson's victory was total - and that's a good thing if you believe, as the Met apparently do not, in the rule of law.

But you won't know that if you watch, say, Sky News. The accused's frustration at being questioned by Sky court reporter Bonehedda McArsepants is wholly merited:

~Here's another case that would have benefitted from a real court reporter in the press gallery. Hollywood sex fiend Harvey Weinstein's downfall precipitated the whole #MeToo movement, so there was a lot riding on his conviction. Nevertheless, even in the dirty stinkin' rotten corrupt courthouses of New York, certain minimal obligations to prove one's case are still supposed to apply.

[Pontiac]

`No, no!’ said the Queen. `Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’

[spankalib]

Bonehedda McArsepants

LOL!